Mitchel-Tockman V. Urban Outfitters, Et Al. Complaint
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lance Brown and Associates, LLC 1 AAA Drive, Suite 205 Robbinsville, New Jersey 08691 (609) 587-5100 (609) 587-6030 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs LESLEY MITCHEL-TOCKMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiffs, DOCKET NO.: v. CIVIL ACTION URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. d/b/a VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND ATHROPOLOGIE, FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant. Plaintiff, Lesley Mitchel-Tockman, residing at J19 Shirley Lane, Lawrence, New Jersey 08648, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, hereby complains against Defendant, Urban Outfitters, Inc. d/b/a/ Anthropologie, and alleges of her own knowledge and conduct and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: Preliminary Statements 1. Plaintiff, in her individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this action under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations N.J.S.A. 34:11- 56a, et seq. (“NJWHLR”), and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §201, et. seq., (“FLSA”) for monetary damages, liquidated damages and costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a result of Defendants’ commonly applied policy and practice of altering employees’ time cards to reflect the employees having worked less hours than actually worked for the purpose of avoiding paying the employees their earned overtime pay. Upon information and belief, Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed the violations of the NJWHLR and FLSA as described above for well more than one (1) year. 2. Plaintiff, in her individual capacity, additionally brings this action under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et. seq. (“CEPA”) for monetary damages, punitive damages, costs, including attorneys’ fees, and such other 1 of 16 relief as the Court deems just and equitable as a result of Defendant taking an impermissible retaliatory action against Ms. Mitchel-Tockman after Ms. Mitchel- Tockman expressed her reasonable belief to Defendant that Defendant’s policies and practices were violative of law and public policy. The Parties 3. Plaintiff, Lesley Mitchel-Tockman (hereafter referred to as “Ms. Mitchel-Tockman” or “Plaintiff”), is a citizen and resident of the County of Mercer in the State of New Jersey residing at J19 Shirley Lane, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648. 4. Defendant, Urban Outfitters, Inc., (hereafter referred to as “Urban”) is a private, for- profit business entity incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business located at 5000 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19112. 5. According to Urban’s January 31, 2012 SEC Form 10-k Urban states about itself that: “We are a leading lifestyle specialty retail company that operates under the Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, Free People, Terrain and BHLDN brands. We also operate a wholesale segment under the Free People brand. Our core strategy is to provide unified store environments that establish emotional bonds with the customer. In addition to our retail stores, we offer our products and market our brands directly to the consumer through our e-commerce websites, www.urbanoutfitters.com, www.anthropologie.com, www.freepeople.com, www.urbanoutfitters.co.uk, www.urbanoutfitters.de, www.urbanoutfitters.fr, www.anthropologie.eu, www.shopterrain.com and www.bhldn.com and also through our Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie and Free People catalogs. We have achieved compounded annual sales growth of approximately 15% over the past five years, with sales of approximately $2.5 billion in fiscal 2012.” 6. Urban, operating under various trade names, including Anthropologie, owns and operates numerous retail stores in the State of New Jersey including a location at the Princeton Market Fair, 3535 U.S. Highway 1, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. 2 of 16 7. Urban also sells its products in the State of New Jersey via online sales through various domain names, including www.anthropologie.com. 8. Ms. Mitchel-Tockman is a former assistant department manager at Defendant’s, Anthropologie retail store location at the Princeton Market Fair, 3535 U.S. Highway 1, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. 9. Urban directly controls and determines the company’s entire business practice, including, but not limited to, employees’ work schedules, wage payment policies and hiring/terminating policies. Jurisdiction and Venue 10. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-9 as if set forth at length herein. 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and claims pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. §1331 because this matter involves a “Federal Question” to the extent that this litigation involves the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §201, et. seq. 12. The Court may maintain personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because the cause of action arises out of an employer/employee relationship entered into and carried out within the jurisdiction of this Court and because the Defendant operates within the jurisdiction of this Court. As such, this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant complies with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and thus satisfies the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and its progeny. 13. The Court may also maintain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims set forth herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a) and Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because they are sufficiently related to one or more claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction in that they form part of the same case or controversy. 3 of 16 14. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b)(1) and (b)(2) as Defendant, a corporation, resides within the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 (c)(2) as Defendant is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction and because a substantial part of the events which forms the basis of this claim occurred within this district, respectively. Factual Allegations 15. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-14 as if set forth at length herein. 16. At all times relevant herein, Urban was/is a retail business selling fashion apparel, accessories and home goods throughout multiple states, including the State of New Jersey, through various “brick-and-mortar” retail stores operating under various trade names, such as Anthropologie, and via e-commerce via various domain names, including www.anthropologie.com. 17. At all times relevant herein, Urban was the employer of Ms. Mitchel-Tockman and similarly situated employees within the meaning of all applicable federal and state laws and statutes including the NJWHLR, FLSA and CEPA. 18. At all times relevant herein, Urban directly hired Ms. Mitchel-Tockman and similarly situated employees, paid them wage and benefits, controlled their work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions and kept at least some records regarding their employment. 19. At all times relevant herein, Ms. Mitchel-Tockman was employed by Urban as an assistant department manager. 20. Neither Ms. Mitchel-Tockman nor similarly situated employees did nor do qualify as “exempt employees” as defined by applicable federal and state laws and regulations including the NJWHLR, FLSA and CEPA. 4 of 16 21. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were intentionally and willfully denied overtime pay by Urban when Ms. Mitchel-Tockman’s supervisor, and the supervisors of other similarly situated employees, altered Ms. Mitchel-Tockman’s and other similarly situated employees’ timecards to reflect that they worked less hours in a workweek than they actually worked. 22. Ms. Mitchel-Tockman, on average, worked over forty (40) hours per week. 23. Throughout her employment and continuing to her termination, Ms. Mitchel-Tockman and similarly situated employees were never paid the correct overtime compensation by Urban for work performed in a given workweek in excess of forty (40) hours. 24. Urban’s conduct and actions described herein, which are in violation of the NJWHLR and FLSA, were/are willful, intentional and not the result of a good faith contest or dispute. 25. During her employment at Urban, Ms. Mitchel-Tockman’s supervisor, under the approval and direction of Urban, would routinely alter Ms. Mitchel-Tockman’s timecards to reflect her having worked less hours than she actually worked for the purpose of avoiding having to pay Ms. Mitchel-Tockman here earned overtime pay. 26. During her employment, Mrs. Mitchel-Tockman complained multiple times to her supervisors, including her district manager, Mr. Jeff Kumer, and other individuals at Urban, regarding her belief that altering her timecards to reflect her having worked less hours than she actually worked for the purpose of avoiding having to pay her the correct amount of earned overtime pay was in violation of law and public policy. 27. Ms. Mitchel-Tockman’s belief that altering her timecards to reflect her having worked less hours than she actually worked for the purpose of avoiding having to pay her the correct amount of earned overtime pay was in violation of law and public policy is/was 5 of 16 formed from her experience in the working world, including, but not limited, her experience working as a manager in a retail store. 28. Despite Ms. Mitchel-Tockman’s complaints, Urban initially did not change its policy and continued to routinely altered her timecards to reflect her having worked less hours than she actually worked for the purpose of avoiding having to pay her the correct amount of earned overtime pay. 29. Eventually, Urban responded to Ms. Mitchel-Tockman’s complaints by reducing her hours to below forty (40) hours per week. 30. This reduction of Ms. Mitchel-Tockman’s hours to below forty (40) hours per week was done despite the fact that upon hiring Ms.